Necromunda The Sump: General hobby venting thread (Beware: old men shouting at clouds)

[Tiny]

I'd like to see GW do what they did during the Fanatic era. Just re-print a bunch of old games. They could easily re-monetise games like Mordheim and BFG by just reprinting them exactly as they were or producing compendia like the 2000 version of Necromunda.

 

[SAWAL2]

I'd like to see GW do what they did during the Fanatic era. Just re-print a bunch of old games. They could easily re-monetise games like Mordheim and BFG by just reprinting them exactly as they were or producing compendia like the 2000 version of Necromunda.

I wonder if Mordheim was considered by GW back in 2017 when Necromunda was re-released?

There was a videogame release of Necromunda at that time which used the 2017 style - And the same studio did a version of Mordheim aswell.

 

[Punktaku]

Wasn’t “Cursed City” their Mordheim rerelease?

 

[SAWAL2]

Wasn’t “Cursed City” their Mordheim rerelease?

I'm not 100% sure - I haven't kept up to date with the "New" AOS/Warcry stuff; I did ask in a GW store a few months back but the assistant seemed to think it wasn't.

 

[Burgraph]

Wasn’t “Cursed City” their Mordheim rerelease?

More of a Blackstone Fortress than a Mordeheim. Mordeheim won't drop until they run out of "human" models since being allergic to decent xenos release isn't unique to 40k

 

[Tiktaalik]

If you don't have GW miniatures you're pretty much sol for tournament play, painting competitions, etc. A lot of players won't play you at clubs either if internet chat is to be believed.

Internet chat ought to be taken with a grain of salt anyways because that is friggin preposterous. There must still be independent tournaments, taking place, right? I have no experience with painting competitions.

 

[MusingWarboss]

I think they’re more likely to remake Mordheim if The Old World proves popular, as it will be set then.

I suspect much like before it’ll probably use Necromunda as its base and probably pick up from where Necromunda is whenever it is released.

 

[TopsyKretts]

Curious what motivation people have to play miniature games in general when it comes to narrative vs rules driven / game mechanics. And in particular when they're in conflict. Feels like a lot of optional/experimental stuff breaks down the boundaries of the rules. And how does this affect the experience of playing the game? Case in point is the new Nemesis rules in Apocrypha Necromunda. It's basically guidelines to create any character you wish, any skills or equipment, psyker or not. With any amount of bodyguards/minions if you want it to form a gang. Let's go with that narrative spirit and accept it as is. This is supposed to make a narrative backdrop for the campaign, and the end of the campaign should allow for the gangs to defeat the Nemesis. What then if it accidentally dies in the first battle? Nemesis rules says it can't die. So do you even bother rolling for Lasting Injuries? Or ignore Memorable death? Or re-roll it? I've always focused on game-mechanic first, so curious to see how others treat the game when you sometimes put that aside.

 

[Punktaku]

From what i've heard in podcasts, the nemesis is an arbitrator tool to be used as a big bad hidden behind the scenes of the campaign. they probably shouldn't be turning up at all in early games, just in the end games. or to assist lower-rated gangs taking on higher rated gangs. They're supposed to be shadowy puppet masters, not in your face opponents.

 

[TopsyKretts]

No, it can very well turn up in the first battle. The book actually suggests it as an alternative, to introduce it and set the tone of the campaign. Of course there are suggestions all over the place, very much do as you wish here.

From a game mechanics point of view, there are two instances when the Arbitrator might want to represent the Underhive Nemesis on the battlefield. The first and most obvious is as an adversary controlled by the Arbitrator - perhaps in a special scenario or multi-player battle. In these instances, the Underhive Nemesis acts much like any other fighter, perhaps leading their own band of gangers or bodyguards and opposing the player, or players, and their efforts to win the scenario. This can be especially appropriate at the beginning or the end of a campaign cycle. A run-in with the campaign's Underhive Nemesis will set the tone for who is really opposing the players' gangs, while the Underhive Nemesis presents a suitable final obstacle for them to overcome to lay claim to a region of the underhive, secure a lost horde of archeotech or perhaps even escape the oppressive nature of their own existance and break 'free' into the wastes.

And for killing the nemesis:

Should an Underhive Nemesis be killed (i.e., suffer a Memorable Death result on the Lasting Injury table) while taking part in a scenario, it can be assumed that they survived somehow, and the Arbitrator should come up with a suitable narrative reason for their survival. Perhaps they were dragged off the battlefield by their retainers, or fell into the sump or an abyss, thought dead until they show up again. While on the surface, this might seem frustrating for the players, it is actually far more satisfying to defeat an Underhive Nemesis by foiling their plans than with a lucky lascannon shot, and having an Underhive Nemesis remain a threat until the end of a campaign gives it a sense of ongoing drama in addition to the usual struggle between the gangs.

All this is fine, basically just make up any excuse to keep the narrative rolling. Personally I'm not so sure this is merely frustrating on the surface. I'd rather skip the Lasting Injury roll than having to roll, then suddenly ignore it if it doesn't fit the plan of the campaign. I'm more used to letting the narrative follow the randomness of the game, than have the narrative override the gameplay and randomness within it. How do you feel about it?

For example, the Nemesis tries to jump from one walkway to another (insert epic movie moment), but rolls 1 for Initiative, stumbles and falls do the ground, dying a horrendous death. Then you simply ignore the Lasting Injury, make up an excuse and continue the campaign? To me, that makes the Lasting Injury roll pointless. And to push it further, why bother with the Initiative roll for the jump, if the narrative of the game is improved by a successful jump (and the scenes to follow, for example an epic duel?). Going that extra step suddenly makes the stats irrelevant. To see where I'm going with this,, continuing this road away from game mechanics could reduce everything to a game of playing with dolls or action figures... Not saying that's the case, but a small step towards it?

 

[Punktaku]

Or the second in command takes over, and has a personal vendetta against the gang that "killed the boss"? it's all optional anyway.

 

[TopsyKretts]

Yeah that's acceptable, but not what the Nemesis rules guidelines suggest. It's more like an unrestricted Outcast Leader, you know when everything is focused on that one main character and everyone else are background characters.

I'm not so worried that this type of optional content breaks the rules, but curious how others experience the game when you at any point ignore the rule-based events in the game and override it for narrative purposes. That's a step into the territory of anything goes. If you're fine with that, is there anything you're not fine with?

Losing your leader to an unlucky series of rolls in the first battle is a hard blow for your chances of success, right? So, for the purpose of narrative, you could do the same thing. Pretend the Leader survived miraculously. But then, why not do the same for a champ? It's more a philosophical conundrum for me. Once you cross the line, do you draw any lines? If so, how?

 

[MusingWarboss]

Sounds like the designers watched the Disney Star Wars trilogy.

“Ah crap, what if the villain is killed in game 2? Doesn’t that ruin the campaign?? Better put in a get out clause…”

 

[TopsyKretts]

Haha was thinking about Star Wars yeah.

 

[Mr. M]

Why the heck are these "Nemesis" rules even needed? If someone wants an arch-villain for their narrative campaign, just make one up (for example, just think WAAC and use the Goliath gene-smithing rules)! If they die, well that must have been a clone, or was actually just an underling for the real big bad guy, or his evil twin is now out for revenge, or he was really just a robot,... or any of the other dozens of ways it has been done to death by Hollywood over the years. Does GW have so few fumes left in the tank for Necromunda that this low-effort dreck is what is been foisted on the community as "new" "rules"?

 

[TopsyKretts]

Can't say whether this is valuable or not. At minimum it will help those without imagination. But why are they even thinking about taking the role of an arbitrator? Parts of it is the same old bloat listing fighter profiles to choose from (like so many times before). Another part which I found more interesting at first glance was the personal traits (6 motivations, 6 connections, 6 weaknesses), but it's purely ideas used as guide for making decisions during games or the campaign (for example homocidal maniac or greedy).

 

[Tiktaalik]

Huh. I had the exact same idea for the coming campaign that I am arbitrating. I thought I was real slick for wanting to throw a curveball like this. I think the rules are good to have because often times I imagine that the arbitrator also has a gang that’s participating in the campaign.

 

[TopsyKretts]

You mean like playing a gang and also playing the nemesis (with potentially a gang of its own)? That's one hell of a balancing act! Got the impression this was mainly for arbitrators who doesn't participate with a normal gang.

 

[Tiktaalik]

Or he or she shares the control over the nemesis and his goons with the other players.

 

[TopsyKretts]

Can't begin to imagine how that spans out. "The Nemesis should shoot at this fighter from your gang", "no, it should charge that fighter from your gang instead"...